Striking the right balance between EU’s roads, trains boats and planes

In an exclusive interview, European Commission Vice President Loyola de Palacio tells Laurence Frost about the state of play in her transport dossier

European Voice

5/16/01, 5:00 PM CET

Updated 4/12/14, 6:48 AM CET

Q: When are you hoping to see your White Paper on transport adopted by the Commission?

A: In the coming weeks. I hope the Commission will adopt it in time for it to be presented to the Council of transport ministers in June.

Q: Can we still expect its main goal to be the ‘de-coupling’ of transport growth from economic growth?

Q: I don’t remember personally having said that – the question is whether we are to have a good transport system which is capable of answering the need to maintain sustainable growth and for maintaining the quality of life of Europe’s citizens.

The fact is that until now growth has always been related to an increase in transport demand, and this is something that for the moment we can’t avoid.

Q: So we shouldn’t expect to see proposals for a net increase in charges to road users?

A: That is a completely different question. If we intend to have a sustainable transport system, as well as one which can support growth, we must look for a more balanced intermodal system.

What we’ve seen in recent years is a huge increase in road transport, with a decline in rail transport and only slight growth in maritime and inland waterways.

What we must do now is make sure that the next increase in transport demand is mostly fulfilled by these other sectors. We must also put in place fairer tarification systems. It’s clear that the road sector is already under pressure for different kinds of taxes.

Q: So it’s not a question of a net increase…

A: That’s something we’ll have to see later. But the situation is not the same in all member states. There are some countries where the road sector is confronted with huge taxes, through excises, through road tolls, the Euro-vignette. But the Euro-vignette system doesn’t take into account the distances travelled – nowadays it’s a bit obsolete.

The technology exists now for more accurate tarification systems related to the number of kilometres that a transporter is covering.

Q: Are you satisfied with the deal at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) that bans single-hull oil tankers by 2015?

A: I’m satisfied that this is a huge step forward for the protection of the seas worldwide and I think the Union has been the main protagonist in this initiative. It’s very close to what we proposed to the Council of Ministers, so I’m confident ministers will be able to push through the Erika I package [of maritime safety measures].

Q: Is it better to have an international agreement that is slightly weaker – on phase-out periods for example – than the original EU-level proposals?

A: It’s better to have an international deal than to have a regional one. What’s unacceptable is to have a situation where European coasts are less protected than the Americans are – this has been our position.

If there’s sufficient agreement in an international framework it’s always better. After all, what we want is to have less pollution all over the world.

Q: So why not go for an IMO deal on ‘black box’ recorders and disaster compensation?

A: If it was possible we’d like to have an IMO agreement but I’m not sure this is going to happen. This is currently under discussion in the context of the second Erika package.

Q: How soon do you hope to be able to table your single sky proposal to harmonise air traffic control across Europe, blocked by the territorial dispute over Gibraltar airport?

I hope before the next European Council [Göteborg, 15-16 June]. As you know, it was discussed during the Stockholm summit.

A: I hope that Britain and Spain will be capable of reaching an agreement that allows us not only to present the initiative, but to ensure that it can be implemented quickly and not be blocked and put aside in the way that other initiatives have been.

Q: If there is no deal, what is to prevent you from tabling the proposal without the controversial clause exempting Gibraltar?

A: We must wait and see what kind of agreement the British and Spanish governments agree on – perhaps [they might accept] the Gibraltar clause, or some other kind of deal, although I don’t know what that could be.

If there is no agreement then we must look for some kind of balanced solution that avoids taking sides with either member state.

Q: What do you see as the main obstacles facing Europe’s airlines as they face increasing competition foreign rivals?

A: There is a huge restructuring of the airline sector under way in the US, with just three main companies likely to emerge as a result.

At the same time in Europe we have a sector which badly needs a concentration process – but this process is blocked by the open skies agreements signed by some member states.

Q: Do you think the Commission sometimes takes too hard a line over the competition concerns raised by alliances between European airlines?

A: When competition aspects are considered they must also take into account the size and the restructuring of the sector for the future, considering that competition, at the end of the day, is within a worldwide market and not just an internal or regional market.